Differential Diagnosis for Skin Conditions Assignment

December 13, 2022

Differential Diagnosis for Skin Conditions Assignment

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

Differential, Diagnosis, for, Skin, Conditions, Assignment

[Order Now]

Properly identifying the cause and type of a patient’s skin condition involves a process of elimination known as differential diagnosis. Using this process, a health professional can take a given set of physical abnormalities, vital signs, health assessment findings, and patient descriptions of symptoms, and incrementally narrow them down until one diagnosis is determined as the most likely cause.

In this Lab Assignment, you will examine several visual representations of various skin conditions, describe your observations, and use the techniques of differential diagnosis to determine the most likely condition.

To Prepare

Review the Skin Conditions document provided in this week’s Learning Resources, and select one condition to closely examine for this Lab Assignment.
Consider the abnormal physical characteristics you observe in the graphic you selected. How would you describe the characteristics using clinical terminologies?
Explore different conditions that could be the cause of the skin abnormalities in the graphics you selected.
Consider which of the conditions is most likely to be the correct diagnosis, and why.
Search the Walden library for one evidence-based practice, peer-reviewed article based on the skin condition you chose for this Lab Assignment.
Review the Comprehensive SOAP Exemplar found in this week’s Learning Resources to guide you as you prepare your SOAP note.
Download the SOAP Template found in this week’s Learning Resources, and use this template to complete this Lab Assignment.

The Lab Assignment

Choose one skin condition graphic (identify by number in your Chief Complaint) to document your assignment in the SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) note format rather than the traditional narrative style. Refer to Chapter 2 of the Sullivan text and the Comprehensive SOAP Template in this week’s Learning Resources for guidance. Remember that not all comprehensive SOAP data are included in every patient case.
Use clinical terminologies to explain the physical characteristics featured in the graphic. Formulate a differential diagnosis of three to five possible conditions for the skin graphic that you chose. Determine which is most likely to be the correct diagnosis and explain your reasoning using at least three different references, one reference from current evidence-based literature from your search and two different references from this week’s Learning Resources.

RUBRIC

Using the SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) note format: Create documentation, following SOAP format, of your assignment to choose one skin condition graphic (identify by number in your Chief Complaint). · Use clinical terminologies to explain the physical characteristics featured in the graphic. The response clearly, accurately, and thoroughly follows the SOAP format to document one skin condition graphic and accurately identifies the graphic by number in the Chief Complaint. The response clearly and thoroughly explains all physical characteristics featured in the graphic using accurate terminologies.

Formulate a different diagnosis of three to five possible considerations for the skin graphic. Determine which is most likely to be the correct diagnosis, and explain your reasoning using at least three different references from current evidence-based literature. The response clearly, thoroughly, and accurately formulates a different diagnosis of five possible considerations for the skin graphic. The response determines the most likely correct diagnosis with reasoning that is explained clearly, accurately, and thoroughly using three or more different references from current evidence-based literature.

Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction are provided that delineate all required criteria. Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion are provided that delineate all required criteria.

Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

BUSI 600 Business Case Study

For each Case Study Assignment, you will read the assigned case study and analyze the case scenario/research through a series of questions. The overall structure of each case is similar in that each case begins with an abstract followed by a description of the scenario/research and concludes with a discussion about the situation. The discussion is simply a series of unique questions about the case scenario that you will answer as your Case Study Assignment.

No abstract is required for the Case Study Assignment nor are an introduction or conclusion; simply type the questions as an APA style heading and respond. Ensure the following are met:

Must be supported with at least 4 scholarly (peer reviewed) research articles in your response.
Must be at least 900 words (the word count does not include the question text, cover page, or reference page)
Use proper grammar, current APA format and submit in MS Word format

The cases can be found in McGraw Hill Connect or as documents in the Resources section.

The questions for each Case Study Assignment can be found in McGraw Hill Connect as follows:

Hero Builder’s Case Study Assignment: see case page 2

Criteria Ratings Points

Content – Case Analysis

24 to >22.0 pts

Advanced

Insightful throughout. Completely developed all relevant information. Critical issues and key problems that supported the Case Analysis were clearly identified, analyzed, and supported.

22 to >18.0 pts

Proficient

Specific, solid. Less carefully developed. Some insights. Critical issues and key problems that supported the Case Analysis were partially identified, analyzed, and supported.

18 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Vague, obvious, underdeveloped, or too broad. One or more main issues not identified. Limited evidence of critical thinking. Critical issues and key problems that supported the Case Analysis were not clearly identified, analyzed, and supported.

0 pts

Not Present

24 pts

Content – Synthesis of course theories/ concepts and case analysis

24 to >22.0 pts

Advanced

Convincingly interpreted and linked to course theories/ concepts. Considers context and limits of position where appropriate. Key points were clearly identified and supported with a well thought out rationale based on applying specific concepts or analytical frameworks to the data provided in the case.

22 to >18.0 pts

Proficient

Relevant. Appropriately interpreted and linked to main course theories/concepts. Key points were partially identified and supported with a well thought out rationale based on applying specific concepts or analytical frameworks to the data provided in the case.

18 to >0.0 pts

Developing

A few generalized connections made to course theories/concepts. Connections not clearly linked to case. Key points were not identified and supported with a well thought out rationale based on applying specific concepts or analytical frameworks to the data provided in the case.

0 pts

Not Present

24 pts

Content – Application of Scholarly Research

22 to >20.0 pts

Advanced

Author accurately applied 4 or more scholarly (peer reviewed) sources.

20 to >18.0 pts

Proficient

Author accurately applied at least 3 scholarly (peer reviewed) sources.

18 to >0.0 pts

Developing

Author accurately applied 1 or 2 scholarly (peer reviewed) sources.

0 pts

Not Present

22 pts

Structure – Mechanics

10 to >8.0 pts

Advanced

Correct spelling and grammar are used throughout the essay. There are 0–1 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.

8 to >7.0 pts

Proficient

Specific, solid. Less carefully developed. Some insights. Critical issues and key problems that supported the Case Analysis were partially identified, analyzed, and supported.

7 to >0.0 pts

Developing

There are more than 3 errors in grammar or spelling that distract the reader from the content.

0 pts

Not Present

10 pts

Case Study Grading Rubric | BUSI600_C01_202140

Criteria Ratings Points

Structure – APA Style

10 to >8.0 pts

Advanced

There are 0–1 minor errors in APA format in the required items: title page, running head, font type and size, line spacing, headings, citations, and references.

8 to >7.0 pts

Proficient

There are 2–3 minor errors in APA format in the required items.

7 to >0.0 pts

Developing

There are more than 3 errors in APA format in the required items.

0 pts

Not Present

10 pts

Structure – Word Count

10 to >8.0 pts

Advanced

The minimum word count 900 words is met. Excluding the cover page and References page(s).

8 to >7.0 pts

Proficient

The word count of at least 800 words is met. Excluding the cover page and References page(s).

7 to >0.0 pts

Developing

The word count of 500–799 words. Excluding the cover page and References page(s).

0 pts

Not Present

10 pts

Total Points: 100

[Order Now]

Differential Diagnosis for Skin Conditions Assignment

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.